4 ms·
>He allegedly broke into an MIT network closet to install his own hardware, so as to avoid IP-based restrictions on the content. Maybe you should read the orig
by bensw 14y ago
>He allegedly broke into an MIT network closet to install his own hardware, so as to avoid IP-based restrictions on the content.
Maybe you should read the original indictment instead of throwing around conclusions not found in evidence.
- danielweber 14y agoHuh? All those statements are in the original indictment. "Swartz contrived to ... break into a restricted computer wiring closet at MIT;" "Swartz connected the Acer computer to MIT's computer network" "JSTOR blocked the computer's access to its network by refusing communications from the computer's assigned IP address. ... Swartz obtained for his computer a new IP address on the MIT network ... and began again to download an extraordinary volume of articles from JSTOR." (Sorry for typos, I have a PDF of the indictment that is images)
- bensw 14y agoWas referring to "Install...to avoid IP based restrictions"
- danielweber 14y agoAccording to the original indictment, he actively worked around IP-based restrictions. See section 18. When that didn't work, MIT put in MAC-level blocking, and he worked to evade that, too. See section 21, among others. He later brought in another computer. See section 22. He later brought the laptops when he connected inside the wiring closet and assigned himself IP addresses. See section 26. I don't see any error on ef4's part, much less one that warrants a "maybe you should read"-level response.
- bensw 14y agoI didn't mean to come off as aggressive--was left over pent-up rage from the errors in the article. I likely shouldn't discuss this topic any more